Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:38:04 GMT -5
If you give someone six of the best, you punish them by hitting them, usually on their bottom with a long, thin stick. The Free Dictionary - Idioms - six of the best (British & Australian old-fashioned)So I cannot answer any of your questions, ahinton. Wikipedia - Prelude (music)As for Sydney, it occurs to me that it is quite possible to abolish money and replace it with dignity. In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity. If I may quote Immanuel Kant directly from his ' Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten' (1785): For example, I have just invited you to the cinema tonight. Of course, it has a cost, and if you were actually to turn up, it would have a very high cost, because you would have to travel a long way to get here! But it also has a dignity, because the evening is free! If I have to cancel, I receive a credit and you can come at a later date. The money, in the sense of the price of the cinema ticket, has been abolished! Is this what you mean by the abolition of money, Sydney?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2014 1:25:47 GMT -5
. . . Is this what you mean by the abolition of money, Sydney? Not really. I mean that money should never again be mentioned in polite society and not "replaced" by anything. It is a vehicle for inequality. One thing we may say with certainty about Immanuel Kant is that everything he wrote is wrong. Take for example: "Im Reiche der Zwecke hat alles entweder einen Preis oder eine Würde." (where I would translate Würde as "value" rather than "dignity", but let us leave that aside). In the "realm of ends" there are entities that have no price and no particular value (for example a little trip in a canoe you might want to take across the Channel one sunny afternoon). "What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent" - untrue, what is not identical is not "equivalent". "What . . . is above all price and therefore (eh?) admits of no equivalent" (there is no necessary connection between a lack of price and the admission of no equivalent) has a dignity." Not, as I have already indicated in respect of the canoeing, so. Another one of Kant's foolish theories was that Africans are chocolate-coloured because of a superfluity of phlogiston in their blood. In fact nothing he says makes I am sorry to say much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Sept 15, 2015 5:46:03 GMT -5
The Guardian (despite its women's section) leads us along: Why Free?Actually we would prefer not to use the word "free", even, in this context because it implies being free of something which will one day - as soon as possible - be unmentionable.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 15, 2015 9:40:00 GMT -5
The Guardian (despite its women's section) leads us along: Why Free?Actually we would prefer not to use the word "free", even, in this context because it implies being free of something which will one day - as soon as possible - be unmentionable. It's that "we" again - and unidentified as usual! Personally, I would prefer that you didn't use the word "we" unless when so doing you specify to whom besides yourself you seek to refer; in the meantime - and with little hope that you will accept and act upon my entreaty in this regard - I note that it might well be argued that a passage beginning "Both myself and my courageous publishers" is already unmentionable...
|
|
|
Post by Betsy on Sept 16, 2015 3:07:05 GMT -5
It's that hat again - the one through which Mr. H. customarily "talks". In case you have not noticed, sir, the topic of this section is the abolition of money and we would rather not read your ineffectual attempts to divert our attention therefrom. If the subject of personal pronouns and their use so much interests the member we would advise him to begin a new thread on that subject wherein our grammatical authorities will probably manage to put him straight.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 16, 2015 5:58:30 GMT -5
It's that hat again - the one through which Mr. H. customarily "talks". No hat (not even a hi-hat) and no talk; merely typing. In case you have not noticed, sir, the topic of this section is the abolition of money There's really no need to address me as "sir"; my forum ID is my name and I make no secret of it. As to what I have noticed, it is that the topic is "A prelude" and, whilst the abolition of money is referred to in such discussion as it has so far attracted, that subject has already been discussed elsewhere on this forum and, since only a tiny percentage of the mere baker's dozen forum members contributed to it and as no one has put forward either how global agreement on the implementation of such abolition could ever be reached or what system would replace it and how such a system could be made to function internationally, it is reasonable to conclude that the topic has but little mileage, as I have observed previously. we would rather not read your ineffectual attempts to divert our attention therefrom. I have made no such attempts, have no wish to divert attention from that topic and, should the membership demonstrate that it wishes to discuss it, I would be interested to read what those other members might have to say about it, provided that they all first address those questions of how said agreement could be reached, what system would thereafter replace money and how such a system would work (without all of which such discussion would seem rather fruitless). If the subject of personal pronouns and their use so much interests the member It does not in general terms; indeed, all that I have had cause to allude to on several occasions is the one specific issue of the unclear and unexplained use of the first person plural ("we", "our", &c.) - unclear and unexplained because those who have recourse to it never clarify to whom said pronouns purport to refer. we would advise him to begin a new thread on that subject wherein our grammatical authorities will probably manage to put him straight. Here you go again - "we" and "our"; I would by no means be inclined to take any advice from those who refrain from the common courtesy of identifying themselves and in this instance, I have no idea of - and you omit to clarify - the identities of those "grammatical authorities" to which you refer. That said, I will take you own implied advice and instigate such a thread, although with little expectation that it will attract any more in the way of constructive and informative responses (or indeed any at all) from other members than have present and past discussions of the abolition of money!
|
|